'Young people these days ...'

[Bonam]

You'd have to speak to the OP about vapid generalizations about millenials, it's her topic.

No, truck driving will not be automated in 10 years, Mr Jetson.

And why would you oppose a millenial grad eaving the part time work at Starbucks, which is the scenario proposed in the OP, when there is an immediate job for good bucks available right now? Or is it the requirement to give up the real career, which is being a whiny urban hipster living in the parents basement?

No, by all means, they can go drive trucks instead of working at Starbucks. From my understanding though, truck driving requires some amount of training time and investment. As one of a series of odd jobs, I'm sure it's a fine option right now. But it's not a long term prospect due to automation (you can argue whether it will be 10 years or 15 or something but seriously, look at the progress in self-driving cars and the vast incentive for trucking companies to automate).

Generally, the trades (electrician, plumber, machinist, etc) are better bets for someone that is willing to "get their hands dirty" as you put it to make good money.

But the reality is the whole mythos of swarms of unemployed "millenials" is hugely overstated. Unemployment rates were high following the 2008 financial crisis, and naturally the brunt of that was felt by new people entering the job market at that time. Today, unemployment is back down to the usual levels (in North America), and the job prospects of millenials are totally fine.

[overthere]

Generally, the trades (electrician, plumber, machinist, etc) are better bets for someone that is willing to "get their hands dirty" as you put it to make good money.

You missed my point. Truck drivers were just one example of the many full time, decently paid jobs available.

My sympathy level is near zero for the supposedly intelligent grad who voluntarily wastes their time makings lattes when there are options. It hits zero when they blubber about it, as if it anything to do with anybody but themselves.

[Boges]

That's OK, soon a Starbucks are just going to be a Vending Machine next to a Keurig.

As for Truck Driving, I'm sure there are some environmental considerations for these urban youngsters not wanting to do that.

A lot has been written about the training of truck drivers in the Toronto area and how contracts are being given to the lowest common denominator to places that train people over a weekend.

http://www.landlinemag.com/Story.aspx?StoryID=28044#.VIDIsEKWT8s

It's actually a big public safety risk.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Boges

[guyser]

It's actually a big public safety risk.

Can I get you to change that to HUGE public safety risk?

[Moonlight Graham]

Alberta, Saskatchewan, BC all have jobs for the motivated.

Where did you get the idea that Alberta has suddenly shut down?

Every generation faces work challenges, and the response is or should be the same: Help yourself.

Society is not to blame for a poor career choice or an unwillingness to adapt.

Fair enough, but you also have to accept that companies are squeezing the bottom-line in many ways more now than any time in most people's.lifetimes. Even in sectors/occupation in demand, short-term contracts are the norm over longer investments in employees, benefits are being cut or employees are finding every way they can to avoid giving them out (including short-term contracts where employees don't hit the minimum time threshold to qualify for them).

Even government departments (unionized!) are cutting or halting the hiring of indeterminate employees in favour of short-term contracts, and short-term contract jobs are being cut in favour of hiring cheaper employees like students.

[jacee]

You'd have to speak to the OP about vapid generalizations about millenials, it's her topic.

Part of the problem with millenials is that jobs that require sweat or getting your hands dirty, at any pay level, are not of interest.

I think Bonam meant your " vapid generalizations about millenials"

.

[overthere]

Fair enough, but you also have to accept that companies are squeezing the bottom-line in many ways more now than any time in most people's.lifetimes. Even in sectors/occupation in demand, short-term contracts are the norm over longer investments in employees, benefits are being cut or employees are finding every way they can to avoid giving them out (including short-term contracts where employees don't hit the minimum time threshold to qualify for them).

Even government departments (unionized!) are cutting or halting the hiring of indeterminate employees in favour of short-term contracts, and short-term contract jobs are being cut in favour of hiring cheaper employees like students.

You're wrong about govts employing temps being recent, that has been an issue for decades. It has little to do with our times though, and a lot to do with the arcane rituals and ridiculous timeframes of hiring anybody for the public service.

Perhaps it is your generation that is surprised about structural changes to employment practices, but it is scarcely recent news.

The era of highly paid, limited skilled jobs-for-life is long gone. Making $80k per year + benefits + fat pension for bolting things together on an assembly line are over. It will never happen again anywhere.

Adapt or not, it is up to each of us to provide for ourself and family. We can mope and weep for an era that our fathers enjoyed, but it is a totally unsustainable business model.

It is a bit astonishing that the millenials fail to recognize this while pursuing worthless degrees. I have no intention of weeping with or for them, I'm too busy earning a living.

[GostHacked]

It was a two way street - employees stuck with their employers so employers benefited by the investment. But successive waves of corporate downsizing have shown people that companies cannot be depended on. As a result employees no longer have the loyalty to their employers that they once did and any employer provided training is likely used to get a better job - so employers do not want to invest. It is a catch-22 that is not going to go away.

I had a job interview a couple months ago, and they saw my skill set and job history. They asked me about job loyalty as I had a lot of jobs in the past 20 years (at 5-6). If I had not been laid off, I would still be working in my old job. I found it really odd that a company with a high turn over rate (being a call center type scenario) was asking me about job loyalty. In the end I did not get a job, even though one of the people I was being interviewed by was someone I used to work with years ago at another call center that went tits up. Job loyalty? Show me a reason to be loyal to the company and I will consider it.

[Michael Hardner]

They asked me about job loyalty as I had a lot of jobs in the past 20 years (at 5-6).

Job loyalty? Show me a reason to be loyal to the company and I will consider it.

That's what I was thinking. 'Job Loyalty' isn't even a term in my industry anymore. We say "take care of yourself". If you're not happy, tell us and we'll see what we can do.

[Argus]

Yup, its a fine thing to actually be able to build and fix things. On the other hand, the labour market has changed, there were all kinds of decent paying entry level jobs when I got out of high school. Not any more.

Nobody is going to hire a mechanic without lots of experience. How do you get that experience? That's the issue. People don't work on their own cars like they used to. Cars are too complicated with too many computerized parts. And there are virtually no small, privately owned gas stations around where young guys might learn with their dads. So they have to learn at a trades school and hope someone will hire them for little things.

All the big companies want trades people with experience, and few of them are willing to hire newbies and train them up.

[Argus]

I was thought this would be the case until I heard about the tech that is necessary for these self driving car pilots projects. These cars can only run on routes that have been pre-mapped in detail (much greater detail that what a GPS has) and any variation, such as construction, can cause the navigation program to fail. This tech has a long way to go before it can match the adaptability of a human driver.

Long haul routes are already mapped. It's not complicated to move a big rig from a warehouse on the edge of one city to a distribution centre on the edge of another. A lot easier than programming a car for inter-city driving.

[overthere]

We had a major blizzard a week ago.

I saw many trucks struggling in the conditions. I wonder how a self driving rig would manage?.

Actually, I don't wonder- it would be a forty tonne bomb.

Loads of demand for truck drivers here.

[Argus]

We had a major blizzard a week ago.

I saw many trucks struggling in the conditions. I wonder how a self driving rig would manage?.

Probably much better than humans, with far quicker reactions speeds and no panic.

[Wilber]

Probably much better than humans, with far quicker reactions speeds and no panic.

Really? Who's going to chain them up or make the decision to park it? More to driving in poor conditions than just vehicle control.

[Michael Hardner]

My father studied linguistics, and stated with authority in the 80s that voice recognition would never work.

[Bonam]

Really? Who's going to chain them up or make the decision to park it?

Seems like a trivially simple decision for a computer, much simpler than the algorithm needed to actually drive a car/truck in normal conditions. It's basically a binary decision, I could write the code to make the park/no-park choice in a few hours based on input from, say, a traction sensor (a more complex algorithm could combine data from optical image recognition seeing snow/ice, gps and weather information about the route ahead, etc). But trust me when I say that making a binary decision like that is infinitely easier to program a computer to do than the continuous real-time process of actually driving the vehicle.

As for chaining it up... I guarantee companies would save huge amounts of money by paying for a couple strategically placed chain-up stations with a human employee, rather than for thousands of truck drivers. An automated system to chain up a tire could also be developed fairly easily, but would likely be more expensive than maintaining some chain-up stations.

Edited December 7, 2014 by Bonam

[Wilber]

Seems like a trivially simple decision for a computer, much simpler than the algorithm needed to actually drive a car/truck in normal conditions. It's basically a binary decision, I could write the code to make the park/no-park choice in a few hours based on input from, say, a traction sensor (a more complex algorithm could combine data from optical image recognition seeing snow/ice, gps and weather information about the route ahead, etc). But trust me when I say that making a binary decision like that is infinitely easier to program a computer to do than the continuous real-time process of actually driving the vehicle.

As for chaining it up... I guarantee companies would save huge amounts of money by paying for a couple strategically placed chain-up stations with a human employee, rather than for thousands of truck drivers. An automated system to chain up a tire could also be developed fairly easily, but would likely be more expensive than maintaining some chain-up stations.

I agree that a computerized system could handle the routine driving chores in good conditions but you would have vital safety decisions made by a computer based on two lousy inputs and disregard the human experience and local knowledge built up over years. Sounds like going backwards to me. There can be almost an infinite number of variables to road and weather conditions that only experience and local knowledge can deal with. In aviation we have a name for it." airmanship". It can't be obtained from a computer or a book. For example, transport aircraft autoland systems are limited to 10 knot crosswinds. Humans regularly land in conditions more than three times that and only a human is capable of making the the decision whether it is safe to do so or not.

Any idea how many people you would need at a chain up station on the I5 at the Siskiyous or any other mountain passes. If it is so easy to develop an automated chain up station, why hasn't it been done?

Edited December 7, 2014 by Wilber

[Bonam]

Any idea how many people you would need at a chain up station on the I5 at the Siskiyous or any other mountain passes. If it is so easy to develop an automated chain up station, why hasn't it been done?

Cause every truck has a human inside that can do the chaining up manually, so you don't need an automated chain up station?

There can be almost an infinite number of variables to road and weather conditions that only experience and local knowledge can deal with.

Yes, but it's very easy to make a computer program that always errs on the safe side. In fact, trucks driven by humans very frequently run into trouble in snowy conditions, because the driver thinks they can make it, but they actually can't. With a computer making the call, such scenarios would be all but eliminated. In fact, the overwhelming majority of all traffic accidents, collisions, deaths, in all conditions, both good weather and bad, are a result of human error. I'd feel much safer if the truck on the road beside me was driven by a computer, with nanosecond reaction times, multiple redundancies and backups, etc, rather than a single fallible human who may or may not even be paying attention.

[Wilber]

Cause every truck has a human inside that can do the chaining up manually, so you don't need an automated chain up station?

Yes, but it's very easy to make a computer program that always errs on the safe side. In fact, trucks driven by humans very frequently run into trouble in snowy conditions, because the driver thinks they can make it, but they actually can't. With a computer making the call, such scenarios would be all but eliminated. In fact, the overwhelming majority of all traffic accidents, collisions, deaths, in all conditions, both good weather and bad, are a result of human error. I'd feel much safer if the truck on the road beside me was driven by a computer, with nanosecond reaction times, multiple redundancies and backups, etc, rather than a single fallible human who may or may not even be paying attention.

Sure, you can make the program so safe that nothing moves. Nothing is without risk. A computer can only deal with the information it is given and within the limits that are programmed into it. If it is put outside that envelope, it is screwed. Back to the aircraft analogy, an autopilot can fly an aircraft at altitude much smother than a human but only within a certain envelope, If it gets out of that envelope, it gives up, trips off and says you do it because all it knows is what you have told it to do. Now you are into artificial intelligence territory.

[Bonam]

Back to the aircraft analogy, an autopilot can fly an aircraft at altitude much smother than a human but only within a certain envelope, If it gets out of that envelope, it gives up, trips off and says you do it because all it knows is what you have told it to do.

It does trip off... but not because it's impossible for the computer to fly in those conditions, but because we've specifically programmed it to trip off and hand over control in those conditions, because we have a bias to prefer human control. I guarantee you that an autopilot that can land safely in 10 knot crosswind can be modified to land safely in 11 knot crosswind with a very trivial (if any) change in the code. The 10 knot number is an arbitrary cutoff, a regulation. Like saying the speed limit on a road is 60 mph. It's not a limit because it's impossible to drive faster than that on that road, but because someone decided it would be a good idea to impose that as a speed limit.

[Wilber]

It does trip off... but not because it's impossible for the computer to fly in those conditions, but because we've specifically programmed it to trip off and hand over control in those conditions, because we have a bias to prefer human control. I guarantee you that an autopilot that can land safely in 10 knot crosswind can be modified to land safely in 11 knot crosswind with a very trivial (if any) change in the code. The 10 knot number is an arbitrary cutoff, a regulation. Like saying the speed limit on a road is 60 mph. It's not a limit because it's impossible to drive faster than that on that road, but because someone decided it would be a good idea to impose that as a speed limit.

No, it trips off because it can't do what it was instructed to do. I've had it happen in a sudden onset of turbulence but then, you don't let the autopilot fly in severe turbulence because instead of rolling with the punches, it will try to hang on to the speed and altitude it was programmed for and even if it can maintain those commands, you will have a much rougher ride as a result, putting more stress on the aircraft and its occupants. The ten knot cross wind limit is set because that is what the people who certified the aircraft said was the safe limit for the system, not because it couldn't do it at 11 or 15 knots. Crosswind landings in turbulence are a developed skill learned over time and no two are identical.

[Bonam]

I understand what you are saying, I just don't think that any of the behaviors or abilities you see as distinctly human in these cases would actually be very difficult to replicate at all. On the other hand, a behavior that would be very difficult to replicate is having this discussion that we are having right now, probably close to 20 years away.

[Wilber]

I understand what you are saying, I just don't think that any of the behaviors or abilities you see as distinctly human in these cases would actually be very difficult to replicate at all. On the other hand, a behavior that would be very difficult to replicate is having this discussion that we are having right now, probably close to 20 years away.

Until further notice, these abilities are distinctly human. I'm not saying machines will never be able to replicate them and I most certainly think they can improve safety in many areas including vehicles, particularly when people insist on doing things like texting and driving, but I think you underestimate the value of input which at this stage is solely human. We are a long way from designing a computer program that could have got those guys in Apollo 13 out of the hole they found themselves in and that was over 40 years ago.

[Michael Hardner]

One thing you can do with a truck, though, is program it to park if conditions are becoming bad, or are forecast to be bad. It would still be lower cost than paying a driver.

To my mind, everything potentially could be automated but the last jobs to be automated will be the ones that require frequent on-the-spot tactical thinking or anything that requires a human touch, such as waitering, sales, the arts and so on.

[jacee]

One thing you can do with a truck, though, is program it to park if conditions are becoming bad, or are forecast to be bad. It would still be lower cost than paying a driver.

To my mind, everything potentially could be automated but the last jobs to be automated will be the ones that require frequent on-the-spot tactical thinking or anything that requires a human touch, such as waitering, sales, the arts and so on.

Can an automated truck avoid a child in the road?

Making a living in the Arts has never been an easy task.

Health, residential care and services for the senior baby boom generation is a growing field, but I don't think the millennials would be happy to hear that looking after the despised boomers is their future. :/

.